Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Job Centres to give food vouchers to the unemployed Watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mujeriego)
    Yes. But why must the unemployed be forced to subsist and not exist? Do you think they won't find it humiliating to expose their status to every cashier? At least with money they can pretend they are not considered inferior by society. I assure you that every mouthful bought with a food voucher will taste bitter.
    But its not like this is instead of benefits, this is for those who are having problems with their benefits or cannot get a JSA crisis loan. If you really are in trouble and struggling to put food on the table than this will help you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guise, try reading the article before frothing excitedly at the mouth about people on benefits finally being treated like the second class citizen scum they warrant:

    A person experiencing severe financial hardship, caused by issues such as benefit delays or being ineligible for a JCP crisis loan, will be given a voucher that can be exchanged at a trust foodbank for three days' worth of food.

    An individual can be given three vouchers in a row during one particular period of hardship, and can be helped three times in a year, meaning a total of nine vouchers a year can be given out per person.
    GOOD! I'm glad these benefit scroungers "finally" have to go through periods of such extreme financial instability and deprivation! Might get off their arses. Been living like kings up to now.

    Some of you really are just absolute ****ers.

    The people on the left bashing this - yeah, obviously. But the reason this is risible is the fact that anyone should have to resort to this. I think, as a last resort, it's not a terrible idea, but that's what it is: a last resort. Other "last resorts" (for the benefit of those on our right) may include prostitution, begging and theft. But that's what being poor is all about innit? Eking out a humiliating existence as punishment for not being awesome enough to get rich. Riiiiiight.
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by L i b)
      Why would I care if they choose to spend their benefits on booze? I spend my income on booze!
      Because they are on handouts therefore it should be used for essentials only. If we are paying for luxury why don't we send them on a two week holiday to Spain too?

      And it matters not whether you pay for booze with your income because i'm guessing it's money you earned and not a handout.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      Because they are on handouts therefore it should be used for essentials only. If we are paying for luxury why don't we send them on a two week holiday to Spain too?

      And it matters not whether you pay for booze with your income because i'm guessing it's money you earned and not a handout.
      And while we're at it why don't we succumb to raging hyperbole as well?

      People need to relax to stay sane. There is a definite, although not clear, relationship between poverty and mental ill-health.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jacketpotato)
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

      Thoughts?

      Personally I think its outrageous that people have to rely on footbanks in a rich country in the 21st century...
      41,000 people is not a huge amount.

      The justification is just delays with the JSA system.



      The eventual response given in January 2010 stated that 37,046 people waited 17 days or more for their jobseeker's allowance, of which 20,068 waited 22 days or more.
      .
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      Because they are on handouts therefore it should be used for essentials only. If we are paying for luxury why don't we send them on a two week holiday to Spain too?
      If they wanted to save up for it, then fair enough. "Essentials"? Essential to survival? So, presumably, cold porridge and water is about the extent of it to your mind then? Do you think people should have their benefits docked for, say, buying a Mars bar or putting state money towards Christmas presents?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      This scheme isn't for everyone that's unemployed, only those who are facing 'severe hardships' I do wish people would have a look at the article before posting.

      I think in an 'emergency' people aren't going to care about the scheme being condescending. Quite simply being unemployed is unfortunate, it's unfortunate for the state because they have to pay benefits so it's only fair that the unemployed people themselves share in the misfortune. I personally understand the problems with vacancies, I think some people don't try hard enough to get jobs but I'd say that a decent proportion of people do want to be in work. Even so, it doesn't mean that because you can't get/don't want a job you should immediately have, at your disposal, the same funds as someone who does work.

      I don't look down on those unemployed people who genuinely want a job, however, I do believe that people with a job shouldn't have to pay extortionate taxes so that unemployed people can live the same way through government funding.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      Because they are on handouts therefore it should be used for essentials only. If we are paying for luxury why don't we send them on a two week holiday to Spain too?

      And it matters not whether you pay for booze with your income because i'm guessing it's money you earned and not a handout.
      Out of interest what do you think about students drinking? After all, uni students live off state subsidies and state handouts.
      Offline

      10
      ReputationRep:
      Wait a second...

      'A person experiencing severe financial hardship, caused by issues such as benefit delays or being ineligible for a JCP crisis loan, will be given a voucher that can be exchanged at a trust foodbank for three days' worth of food.'

      So why are people getting all het up? It's not a permanent fixture, just to help in times of needs when benefits are delayed.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Duncan Idaho)
      another attempt to stigmatise the unemployed .First we had the announcement of chain gangs litter picking , and now this nonsense
      Sorry but this isn't 'stigmatising' anyone, it's making sure they don't waste the taxpayer's money on alcohol/drugs, and 'ride the dole'. We shouldn't give people incentives to not work.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      Job centres around Britain are to give food vouchers to people experiencing severe financial hardship
      This scheme is no way intended for absolutely everyone who is unemployed. It is for those who, as the BBC kindly inform you within the opening paragraph, those who are at the bottom of the financial ladder, i.e: the breadline.

      It's NOT for the person who's getting £20,000 a year from government benefits living in your local council estate.
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      Useless, ineffective daily-mail pandering policy
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Huskaris)
      Living on benefits is not meant to be fun. Why not stigmatise the unemployed? It is a stigma. Not having a job means you are being paid by society, I want that to be something which is looked down upon.
      I think this is reason enough to teach children about poverty otherwise they grow up with fairly ignorant views on it. As much as you may think, not everyone receiving government help is a Lonsdale wearing, special brew drinking lay about. Many claimants are temporary or have fallen on difficult times, either through their own bad decisions or through circumstances in which they were helpless to change.

      Anyway, read the article. Its not for all the unemployed and not a substitute for benefits.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      It's interesting to see how many didn't actually read the article and just read the headline.

      Says a lot really.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by L i b)
        If they wanted to save up for it, then fair enough. "Essentials"? Essential to survival? So, presumably, cold porridge and water is about the extent of it to your mind then? Do you think people should have their benefits docked for, say, buying a Mars bar or putting state money towards Christmas presents?
        I'm saying vouchers for specific shops not so precise as specific food. And christmas presents? I don't really think we should be funding the ability for people to give out gifts for a yearly holiday do you?
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by jacketpotato)
          Out of interest what do you think about students drinking? After all, uni students live off state subsidies and state handouts.
          Well I don't really drink personally but I see it as they are paying back by further educating themselves. And it's not so bad since money is paid back eventually. On the other hand the former shelf stacker in Tescos is training up to be a shelf stacker at another supermarket or equivalent job and they pay nothing back. So it's a completely different situation.
          • Offline

            16
            (Original post by littleshambles)
            And while we're at it why don't we succumb to raging hyperbole as well?

            People need to relax to stay sane. There is a definite, although not clear, relationship between poverty and mental ill-health.
            I don't really think that the state should be paying for your relaxation, merely your survival. And remember unemployment is a temporary affliction not a life one. I don't think a limited period of time in this situation is enough to drive people to suicide because they can't afford a beer.

            On a side note. Hyperbolic language ftw!
            Offline

            19
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Genocidal)
            I'm saying vouchers for specific shops not so precise as specific food.
            What you said was that you don't think such people should have "luxuries", only things essential to survival - I assume this extends to televisions, curtains, gardens, books, flowers. Even electricity, save to provide heat, is questionable. I suppose we could cut their benefits a bit further and give them regulation clothing too, so as to prevent "luxury" items being purchased.

            And christmas presents? I don't really think we should be funding the ability for people to give out gifts for a yearly holiday do you?
            As I've said, I don't believe in telling people what to spend benefits money on. It is of absolutely no interest to me.
            • Offline

              16
              (Original post by L i b)
              What you said was that you don't think such people should have "luxuries", only things essential to survival - I assume this extends to televisions, curtains, gardens, books, flowers. Even electricity, save to provide heat, is questionable. I suppose we could cut their benefits a bit further and give them regulation clothing too, so as to prevent "luxury" items being purchased.



              As I've said, I don't believe in telling people what to spend benefits money on. It is of absolutely no interest to me.

              You may not have an interest or a belief about what to spend benefits money on but I do. It would not be an interest to me neither if everybody used the system correctly and people did not spend it on things such as drugs for example.

              What I expect it to extend to is essentials to living in our era if you will such as electricity, gas, water, food, clothing vouchers for certain stores (not going into specifics on which ones) otherwise survival maybe misinterpreted as literally a cave/tent and a bottle of water.
              • Offline

                1
                (Original post by jacketpotato)
                http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

                Thoughts?

                Personally I think its outrageous that people have to rely on footbanks in a rich country in the 21st century...
                Formerly, the only benefit claimants who received payment by food vouchers were those who had a history of 'non-receipt' of benefit payments...in other words, those who were suspected of fraud before investigations proved otherwise.

                This system though is nothing to do with that...it is to do with either shortages of staff in local offices or inefficiency of local offices in dealing promptly with benefit claims...or if I'm being cynical, "changing the minds of people", as Cameron said he wanted to do.

                These food vouchers will be given when there are delays in paying benefit...and only for a maxium of three times per year. Ideally, people would have the money to pay for their food since this is what benefits are designed for...to keep people clothed, fed and housed.

                My biggest concern here is that the coalition is essentially asking the tax payer to pay twice...once for the benefit payments and again by way of donating their own foodstuffs to the 'Foodbank' Charity. And what happens once the delay in payment is rectified. Is the value of the food voucher deducted from the arrears of benefit, or is the benefit calculated paid in full?

                The government need to pull their finger out and get the responsible Minister to ensure that payments of benefit are made promptly rather than accustomising the population to the idea that monetary payments cease and charitable food donations take over entirely in the future. Always pre-empt what is in the politicans minds.
               
               
               
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • Poll
              Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
              Useful resources

              Groups associated with this forum:

              View associated groups
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

              Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

              Quick reply
              Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.